At 4/19/07 01:54 PM, Bajjer wrote:
But, nevertheless, it is true and Marx did say some wise things. What I had just said is probably the most true.

Marx was an unrealistic shit and so were all of his followers, get over that fact.

Amen. I don't wanna go off-topic, but I still don't understand how one can be communist in the 21st century.. I mean, it's been proven through history that it's a total failure and only leads to totalitarism. Screw communism. And screw the people who wear Che shirts.

Gang Culture has been on the up in the UK for along time, Gun Crime was rising Before and After the Gun Ban. The Ban on Guns did reduce Gun Crime, But Gang Cultue and illegal Guns counteracted the statistics.

School Shootings aren't proffesionaly planned, the kids in most cases, don't know any arms dealers, They Just use there parents guns or buy them legaly down the shop.

So Allthough I agree with you that Gun Bans won't reduce some Gun Crime it will reduce these fucked up school shootings.

Also if gun laws aren't going to do anything about it. And leniant gun laws aren't to blame then tell me why the fuck America is were the majority of these school shootings take place?

At 4/18/07 11:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
- The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in 1996 in which 17 people were shot and killed.

I repeat: handguns were banned in the UK after Dunblaine. Have we had a school/college/university/area shot up since then?

No?

Somebody isn't making a valid point due to a slight case of ignoring the facts, aren't they?

Yes, we have shootings - usually gang based - but no wholescale massacres all of a sudden (such as, say, the 1987 Hungerford Massacre). Is that related?

Well, let's just quote Bill Hicks for this one, shall we? There's a difference between owning a gun and shooting someone and not owning a gun and not shooting someone, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to spot any connection.

Have American attitudes not budged since the early '90's? If not, isn't that the fucking problem?

Propaganda is to a Democracy what violence is to a Dictatorship
Never underestimate the significance of "significant."NG Politics Discussion 101

Remember kids, the second someone thinks of commiting a crime they're given a decoder ring for a vast network with every weapon the little hearts could desire. And that's why gun control affects nothing

I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's

When was the last time you heard of anyone going into a school with a skillet and killing several people,
it would make national headlines. also, you ignore what i said completely. I NEVER said you could use a skillet in a massacre, I just said you could kill with it.

or a man ontop of a clock tower killing people with a slingshot and ball bearings?
thats only because no one has thought of it yet. .. until now.

At 4/19/07 05:21 PM, zzzzd wrote:
Gang Culture has been on the up in the UK for along time, Gun Crime was rising Before and After the Gun Ban. The Ban on Guns did reduce Gun Crime, But Gang Cultue and illegal Guns counteracted the statistics.

School Shootings aren't proffesionaly planned, the kids in most cases, don't know any arms dealers, They Just use there parents guns or buy them legaly down the shop.

So Allthough I agree with you that Gun Bans won't reduce some Gun Crime it will reduce these fucked up school shootings.

Also if gun laws aren't going to do anything about it. And leniant gun laws aren't to blame then tell me why the fuck America is were the majority of these school shootings take place?

So you're saying that someone who is willing to commit mass murder is going to think that illegally purchasing a firearm is too much? Just because something is banned doesn't mean that it's impossible to acquire, and without the legal purchase there is no record to go along with the purchase.

So you're saying that someone who is willing to commit mass murder is going to think that illegally purchasing a firearm is too much? Just because something is banned doesn't mean that it's impossible to acquire, and without the legal purchase there is no record to go along with the purchase.

I'm saying it would be alot harder to obtain a gun, and most of these cunts wont no were to illegaly purchase a gun.

For example, I could say that a high murder rate is caused by a high population density. The numbers fit to that pretty well, but you ignore that fact completely because it doesn't support your theory.

I said at the beginning that there are other variables. I just used 4 examples, I used the most violent area, and the least violent area if the US, with 2 areas around the middle of the equation.

Because my main point behind this thread is that gun control doesn't work, atleast not in the US. There are loads of other factors, including racial make-up, population density etc.. but just blaming the gun is counterintuitive if you look at the facts.

At 4/19/07 07:07 PM, zzzzd wrote:

At 4/19/07 06:41 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

So you're saying that someone who is willing to commit mass murder is going to think that illegally purchasing a firearm is too much? Just because something is banned doesn't mean that it's impossible to acquire, and without the legal purchase there is no record to go along with the purchase.

I'm saying it would be alot harder to obtain a gun, and most of these cunts wont no were to illegaly purchase a gun.

It's not harder though, guns are everywhere. If you read the links about the UK handgun crime, it says that guns are smuggled into the UK illegally and that is what criminals are using. Therefore it doesn't make sense to ban the handguns when A) It didn't reduce gun violence at all (you claimed it did earlier but of course you have no proof for that) and B) the criminals who commit crime are determined enough to find a way to get them regardless. The vast majority of crime is committed with illegally possessed firearms, thus making firearms illegal to purchase LEGALLY for law-abiding citizens miss the mark entirely.

In light of recent events, I would like to assert the recent Virginia Tech massacre was done with legally obtained guns. =)

Not all guns used to commit acts like this are bought illegally.

Of course when you let your citizens have guns you must assume they are intelligent enough to keep them out of the reach of children and that they themselves are not idiots.

You must assume they make good judgement and can be rational. (ie not get mad at a friend in an argument and misuse the firearm)

Also you must assume they won't do thinks to IMPAIR the otherwise decent judgement (ie getting drunk and messing around with said firearm)

So we are at a crossroads. Either we take the good with the bad and allow people to carry concealed weapons so that we may defend ourselves should we ever find ourselves in a situation where we can successfully use the weapon in a manner that is for self-defense, and risk the idiots out our country misusing the firearms.

Or we could give up this supposedly constitutional right to carry weapons. It would do nothing to those willing to obtain the weapons illegally, and if you are one of the few willing to defend yourself rationally in the face of danger (robbery, rape, attempted murder, whathave you) you have your right to carry a weapon unfairly taken from you. However, the death toll from idiots messing with guns will be severely cut down.

I, myself, wouldn't be drastically effected by this either way. I never intend to carry a weapon because even if I was given one I don't think, in all realism, I would have what it takes to defend myself. The odds of me every being raped or murdered are slim, slimmer than most I suppose.

But the way I see it, it does not make a difference wether the gun is obtained illegally or legally. It's a gun, and for every time a man protects himself from being mugged, a drunken man is there to shoot a bullet through his foot.

At 4/19/07 07:40 PM, SirLebowski wrote:
In light of recent events, I would like to assert the recent Virginia Tech massacre was done with legally obtained guns. =)

Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that it only makes up a small fraction of gun violence nationwide. It was an isolated case of a psycho who slipped through the cracks. It doesn't make sense to make national legislation and react the way people are reacting when it won't work in the long run.

Not all guns used to commit acts like this are bought illegally.

But the vast majority are. Therefore people need to use their brain, and look at the facts instead of allowing themselves to be so emotional from the VT shooting that they start proposing gun bans and so forth.

Maybe you should watch the News or take a gander at the liberal blogosphere of late. The general consensus among liberals consists of "OMG liek we needz to make da gunz illegal cuz they killz people, change the constitution! do it now or elzz Bush will destroy us all wit his redneck gun policeez!!!"

At 4/19/07 07:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
Despite what these boards look like, the majority of people walking around with guns on a daily basis far outnumbers the number of kooks cleaning their 9mm every other hour and visiting newgrounds between command and conquer missions.

There are more responsible gun owners than there will ever be kooks. And don't let the kooks tell you otherwise.

I agree. When I was typing my post I wasn't really giving the benefit to the fact that there are many responsible gun owners, but regardless, what do we do with those "kooks"?

At 4/19/07 07:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Maybe you should watch the News or take a gander at the liberal blogosphere of late. The general consensus among liberals consists of "OMG liek we needz to make da gunz illegal cuz they killz people, change the constitution! do it now or elzz Bush will destroy us all wit his redneck gun policeez!!!"

The liberal view on things does tend to be centered around controlling what people do. I've never been fond of their stance on censorship. But the conservative side, I'm willing to bet, can sound just as crazy. I don't think I'd like to side with either on the issue.

My concern is not with the responsible gun owners, but with those who misuse them. I am not fully educated on what is required to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but prehaps we should reconsider what it required inorder to get them? Something to weed out those are likely to abuse firearms.

At 4/19/07 07:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
Despite what these boards look like, the majority of people walking around with guns on a daily basis far outnumbers the number of kooks cleaning their 9mm every other hour and visiting newgrounds between command and conquer missions.

There are more responsible gun owners than there will ever be kooks. And don't let the kooks tell you otherwise.

I agree. When I was typing my post I wasn't really giving the benefit to the fact that there are many responsible gun owners, but regardless, what do we do with those "kooks"?

You need to address them individually instead of creating government intervention that irrationally targets guns, and thereby ends up only punishing responsible, law-abiding American gun owners.

The VT shooter should have been dealt with along time ago. So this issue has nothing to do with gun control, it has to do with how our society treats dangerous and mentally ill people. Because, this kid was a danger regardless of what he used to murder people. He could have made a homemade bomb, he could have gone on a rampage with his car, or he could have been more patient and became a serial killer.

This kid should have been locked up in an insane asylum back in 2005, and/or he should have had his mental health problems put on his permanent record (that would have shown up on the background check).

It makes no sense to entirely miss the mark and focus on gun laws themselves. We need to start weeding out the bad apples of society, rather than target one single tool they might use to cause harm to themselves or others.

The only thing Ill say on this topic regarding the Dunblane tradgedy and ensuing tightening of gun laws, gun crime may have gone up, but name me another massacre of that proportion that took place since the laws came into effect.

At 4/19/07 08:44 PM, Boltrig wrote:
The only thing Ill say on this topic regarding the Dunblane tradgedy and ensuing tightening of gun laws, gun crime may have gone up, but name me another massacre of that proportion that took place since the laws came into effect.

That doesn't matter because in the FULL CONTEXT (that you love to ignore in every issue) is that banning handguns didn't lessen gun violence as a whole, gun violence more than doubled in the UK within years after the handgun ban was enforced. Therefore, one single tragic event shouldn't hold sway in the mind of a rational person when it doesn't have much affect on the amount of people killed nationwide over a longer time.

So you'd rather have more gun violence in your country every year as a whole, as long as no large scale shootings take place?

At 4/19/07 08:44 PM, Boltrig wrote:
The only thing Ill say on this topic regarding the Dunblane tradgedy and ensuing tightening of gun laws, gun crime may have gone up, but name me another massacre of that proportion that took place since the laws came into effect.

When one happens, will you eat your words and support his cause with as much vigor as you are showing now?

Or will you break it down, scenario by scenario and point out the distinct reasons behind the next massacre?

NO, If another massacre on the scale and horrificness of Dunblane happens in this country, I will indeed eat my words.

But my point is that one hasnt happened since then. So far its working (and by that logic nobody can comment on the effectiveness of a law without the qualifier "so far")

At 4/19/07 01:03 PM, JoS wrote:
That is a ridiculous arguement. we shouldn't have gun control because people will just buy it illegally anyways. Thats like saying child porn shoudl be legal because people will do it anyways, or we shouldn't make crystal meth illegal because people will just buy that shit anyways.

JoS,

One of the things about this is what would the outcome have been if some of the students on the VT campus had been allowed to carry their handguns on campus?

I believe that Cellar and I would both agree that gun regulation is necessary, but gun banning is bad...M'Kay? And this tragedy provides an opportunity to analyze this issue.

First: This guy was demented to the point that he wanted to die to get the attention he could not get while he was alive. Nothing would have stopped him from getting a gun.

Secondly: This shows the weakness of the gun banning philosophy. This man had no respect for the laws and rules that prohibited him from having firearms on school property. However, any law abiding "gun nuts" who had concealed carry permits (I do not know if there were any or not...but lets assume for argument's sake) did have respect for the rules and left their firearms at home. A madman who was not all that well armed was able to capture and slaughter an unarmed populace.

I would like to say that as much as I am a staunch opponent of stricter gun control, I have found myself believing that we need to tighten our gun laws in this country.

1) I do not believe a resident alien should be allowed to own firearms. Like voting, there should be rights that are a privilidge of citizenship.

2) There needs to be a closer look at a person's mental health. I'm not really sure how to apply this however. I am not advocating mandatory mental health screenings for anyone who is buying a gun. Furthermore, I do not believe having a history of mental illness should necessarily lead to the lifetime repurcussion of being barred from buying a firearm. There are some people who have a one time breakdown but are then cured. However, people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves and especially others should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm...just like Cho.

The problem is making the second point into a practical system.

Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995..." I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

1) I do not believe a resident alien should be allowed to own firearms. Like voting, there should be rights that are a privilidge of citizenship.

The second ammendment, which is so frequently qouted in situations like this states that it is the right of "the people" to own firearms. I think (not 100% sure) the constitution would need to be changed again to allow the kind of control you propose.

2) There needs to be a closer look at a person's mental health. I'm not really sure how to apply this however. I am not advocating mandatory mental health screenings for anyone who is buying a gun. Furthermore, I do not believe having a history of mental illness should necessarily lead to the lifetime repurcussion of being barred from buying a firearm. There are some people who have a one time breakdown but are then cured. However, people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves and especially others should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm...just like Cho.

The problem is making the second point into a practical system.

Indeed. Some people with mental issues can be perfictly lucid at times. How would you tell someone who was cured of a previous condition from someone who was on his meds on the day of the exam only.

At 4/19/07 08:44 PM, Boltrig wrote:
The only thing Ill say on this topic regarding the Dunblane tradgedy and ensuing tightening of gun laws, gun crime may have gone up, but name me another massacre of that proportion that took place since the laws came into effect.

When one happens, will you eat your words and support his cause with as much vigor as you are showing now?

Or will you break it down, scenario by scenario and point out the distinct reasons behind the next massacre?

NO, If another massacre on the scale and horrificness of Dunblane happens in this country, I will indeed eat my words.

But my point is that one hasnt happened since then. So far its working (and by that logic nobody can comment on the effectiveness of a law without the qualifier "so far")

Where is your logic? Your overall amount of gun violence has gun up since the handgun ban, more than twice as many crimes involving handguns take place in the UK than before the ban.

Why the hell does it matter of massacres of larger scale don't take place anymore if more people still die over all?

You're allowing your emotional response to a single incident cloud your judgment. Yeah Dunblane was bad, and a similar situation hasn't happened since, but the over all gun crime went up exponentially and is still doing so. The handgun ban DID NOT work. The fact that a similar shooting to Dunblane hasn't taken place has nothing to do with the handgun ban, how could it? Especially all while gun violence in the UK over all is going up continually?

You work for NRA or something? Gun control does work. I don't know what the problem is from restricting crazy people from not being allowed to buy a gun over the counter and so easily. As is the case from the VA tech shooter, he was deemed unsafe to himself and others by profesionaly doctors. Running a check for a gun purchase doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't know why gunlovers think it's such a big deal.

Where is your logic? Your overall amount of gun violence has gun up since the handgun ban, more than twice as many crimes involving handguns take place in the UK than before the ban.

Yuh huh, and how many people using guns in crimes had licences for the guns I wonder?

Why the hell does it matter of massacres of larger scale don't take place anymore if more people still die over all?

Criminals have guns in America too. Rising gun crime is due to (wait for it) criminals! You think regular people having guns will solve that?

You're allowing your emotional response to a single incident cloud your judgment. Yeah Dunblane was bad, and a similar situation hasn't happened since, but the over all gun crime went up exponentially and is still doing so. The handgun ban DID NOT work. The fact that a similar shooting to Dunblane hasn't taken place has nothing to do with the handgun ban, how could it? Especially all while gun violence in the UK over all is going up continually?

It has everything to do with it. Thomas Hamilton had a firearms licence. His gun was legal. If guns are illegal, then you can be certain that only criminals have guns, rather than be suspicious of everyone who has one.

If you are adamantly in favour of having a gun, even for "defence" then it proves you have the mind set of someone willing to kill. Thats not a healthy state of mind.

The second ammendment, which is so frequently qouted in situations like this states that it is the right of "the people" to own firearms. I think (not 100% sure) the constitution would need to be changed again to allow the kind of control you propose.

No it would not. To fill out the quote that you are referring to is "We the people of the United States..." Not every right under the Constitution is applicable to everyone...there are citizenship requirments for some of these. So no...it would not require amending the Constitution.

Indeed. Some people with mental issues can be perfictly lucid at times. How would you tell someone who was cured of a previous condition from someone who was on his meds on the day of the exam only.

Exactly. I think that if a person can remain stable...without meds...for a period of five years and after a psychological screening should have his/her rights to gun ownership restored.

However, there should me more transparency when it comes to people who are commited. Perhaps there should be a database (like the FBI's criminal database) that is consulted before a person gets their gun...basically expand the background check.

Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995..." I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress